Developers working on the Tor anonymity service asked Apple months ago to remove a malicious Tor browser that poses a threat to its users from the App Store (via Ars Technica). After receiving no action through official channels, Tor project members now are using more public means to get this app removed.

A report ticket published three months ago by volunteer Phobos details the issue with rogue app.

Quote:

"Tor Browser in the Apple App Store is fake. It's full of adware and spyware. Two users have called to complain. We should have it removed."

Tor officials confirmed they filed a complaint with Apple in December 2013 and received a response that the app developer was allowed to defend his app from these accusations.

Several followup emails were sent to Apple, but there was no response from the Cupertino company. Twelve weeks later and the app remains in the App Store, prompting the team to step up their campaign to get the app removed.

Quote:

"I think naming and shaming is now in order. Apple has been putting users at risk for months now," writes lunar

"I mailed Window Snyder and Jon Callas to see if they can get us past the bureaucracy.

Otherwise I guess plan C is to get high-profile people on Twitter to ask Apple why it likes harming people who care about privacy. (I hope plan B works.)," writes arma.

Apple's App Store is known for being a walled garden where apps are vetted before they are allowed entry into the App Store. The process is not flawless, though, with researchers from Georgia Tech last year showing how an innocuous app with hidden malware-type code could slip through Apple's app approval system.

Once a malicious app is identified in the App Store, Apple has in the past taken steps to remove the app, but the exact process by which an app is removed is not known. In an earlier example, Apple quickly pulled a Russian SMS app that quietly scraped address book contacts and sent them to the developer's server.

I am unable to find out what is so malicious about this fake Tor app. I don't see evidence of malware. All I see is people wanting this fake Tor app to be removed because the name and logo are the same.

In other words, the original complaint "Tor Browser in the Apple App Store is fake. It's full of adware and spyware. Two users have called to complain. We should have it removed." appears to be false accusations.

Since no evidence has been presented, Apple of course will not remove the app. "Two users have called to complain" is not evidence.

I'm no lawyer, but the terms surrounding it apart from attribution seems pretty loose. On the other hand, allowing people to use your trademark seems like pretty obvious attack vector for a project like Tor, where trust is likely considered important. So why not use a strict license, or not allow sharing of the trademark at all. That way you would know if Tor=Tor so to speak.

I'm no lawyer, but the terms surrounding it apart from attribution seems pretty loose. On the other hand, allowing people to use your trademark seems like pretty obvious attack vector for a project like Tor, where trust is likely considered important. So why not use a strict license, or not allow sharing of the trademark at all. That way you would know if Tor=Tor so to speak.

Did you read the license or just the summary? Because it seems pretty straight-forward (at least to me) with what is and isn't allowable under the license.

Quote:

You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

Did you read the license or just the summary? Because it seems pretty straight-forward (at least to me) with what is and isn't allowable under the license.

Only the summary actually, which states nothing but the attribution as a condition. Which imho wouldn't make any difference to determine if it was real or not. Then they should have no problem having it removed. Still don't get the point of the license in this case, what's the purpose of letting someone except the official project use it. And how could it ever be used without even implicitly imply connection with the project?

Still don't get the point of the license in this case, what's the purpose of letting someone except the official project use it. And how could it ever be used without even implicitly imply connection with the project?

Derivative works. I can't imagine there would be much of a need for The Tor Project to make, for instance, a version for use on Symbian OS, but if someone was motivated enough they probably wouldn't mind allowing use of the terms or logo as long as there isn't any confusion as to who it comes from.

A made up example of something they would have no problem with:

Quote:

Anonymity Browser for Symbian OS
[icon that looks like Earth+a picture of an onion]

This browser is based on software from The Tor Project [resized 16x16px Tor logo added next to text for visual clarity] to which we are not affiliated.
[disclaimer of liability]

To put it another way, they would gain nothing from getting the following removed:

Quote:

Onion Browser on the App Store (own name)
[Icon that doesn't even contain an onion]
Onion Browser support(->link to developer's website for support pertinent to the app)
[Statement that it relies on other projects, such as the Tor Project]

While in this case, there are several places implying it is part of the official project, and even links to torproject.org as the official place to go for support:

Quote:

Tor Browser on the App Store (official project name in title)
[icon that contains official onion logo, basically unedited]
Tor Browser support(->link to the Tor Project's main website, with nothing specific to the app in sight, no iOS app even mentioned in support)
[Brief description of what the browser does] (interestingly enough, it is almost verbatim to one found on the website since Orbot, another Tor-related project released sometime in 2008)
[No disclaimer]
[No statement of not being affiliated]

Derivative works. I can't imagine there would be much of a need for The Tor Project to make, for instance, a version for use on Symbian OS, but if someone was motivated enough they probably wouldn't mind allowing use of the terms or logo as long as there isn't any confusion as to who it comes from.

A made up example of something they would have no problem with:

Derivative works of the logo and trademark is pretty much pointless in this case and shows that priorities are wrong, what is this, an art project? Most likely the license got added without much thinking behind it, because it only applies to the trademark and logo.

The actual code is GNU licensed, it's stricter, it's where derivative work has any value in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parasprite

To put it another way, they would gain nothing from getting the following removed:

They wouldn't need to because the Tor project is free software using the GNU license. We are talking strictly about the trademark and logo. How can you use an official logotype and trademark without even implicitly imply any connection with the project? It's pretty much the sole purpose of a logotype and trademark. My point is it leaves open an uneccessary wiggle room for what's implied and so on, when they could simply keep the trademark and logo for the official project only. That way there is never any doubt that the logo and trademark means the official project.

In other words, the original complaint "Tor Browser in the Apple App Store is fake. It's full of adware and spyware. Two users have called to complain. We should have it removed." appears to be false accusations.